Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Law Commission Of India on 2 December, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/LCOMI/C/2023/605122
Shri Naresh Kadyan निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Law Commission of India
Date of Hearing : 28.11.2024
Date of Decision : 28.11.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 22.10.2022
PIO replied on : 02.11.2022
First Appeal filed on : 21.11.2022
First Appellate Order on : 19.12.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.10.2022 seeking information on following points:-
1. "Action taken report on the DLGLA/E/2022/02076, DOAHD/E/2022/00867: DOAHD/E/2022/00868:
GOVGJ/E/2022/23906: DOAHD/E/2021/00026 with materials uploaded, DOAHD-E-2022-00850: GOVGJ-E-2022- 23613; GOVUP-E-2022-84811: GOVHY-E-2022-08781: GOVRJ-E- 2022-06892: GOVMP-E-2022- 06891: GOVUC-E-2022-03011:
GOVHP-E-2022-00878. CPIO and FAA of AWBI, submitted false and fabricated information, mishandling second Appeal No. CIC/AWBIC/A/2021/623985.
2. Complete list of report prepared by the Law Commission of India, with their present status.
3. Status of Cow progeny, in History and under Indian Constitution with complete details and list of matters forwarded by the field functionaries to Central Government, with present status.
4. Cow treated as Goods, being living creature, Law Commission of India, may consider, resolution passed by the Scouts and Guides for Animals and Birds, related to Cow as National Animal Page 1 of India with Honey Bee as National Insects of India, with the protection under Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Cheetah is also not protected being exotic species in India, Is any proposal under consideration."
The CPIO, Law Commission of India vide letter dated 02.11.2022 replied as under:-
"As regards point no. (1) & (3), it is stated that the subject- matter in respect of point no. 1 and 3 is not held by the Law Commission of India.
As regards point no. 2 (part) i.e Complete list of report prepared by the Law Commission of India, it is stated that the Law Commission of India had time to time submitted 277 Reports to the Government on various subjects. All the Reports of the Law Commission of India (submitted so far i.e Report no. 1 to 277) have been made available on the website of the Law Commission i.e. www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in and may be accessed and downloaded freely.
As regards point no. 2 (part) i.e present status, it is stated that the Implementation Cell, Department of Legal Affairs, has been allocated the work of processing the reports of the Law Commission and for further follow-up action. Therefore, the subject-matter(status of the report, etc.) is more closely connected with the functions of D/O Legal Affairs, Implementation Cell because once the report is submitted to the Government, it goes to the implementation cell for further action. Therefore, point no. (2) part, has been transferred u/s 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 to its CPIO.
As regards point no. 4, it is stated that there is no proposal under consideration of the Law Commission of India in respect of point no. 4."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 21.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 19.12.2022 stated as under:-
"4. In brief, the appellant had asked four questions through RTI on line portal and CPIO provided clear and precise information of viz - a-viz all the questions and as regards to the 2nd part of question number 2, it was transferred to Department of Legal Affairs (implementation cell), Ministry of Law and Justice, but the appellant was not satisfied with the information provided by the CPIO and hence this First Appeal under Section 19 of the Right to information Act, 2005.
5. The First Appellate Authority under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act 2005 in the Law Commission of India can handle Page 2 appeals preferred against any order/decision by the CPIO(s) of the Law Commission. The First Appellate Authority in the Law Commission of India is not empowered under Section 19 of RTI Act to hear/ decide any order/ decision by the CPIO of Department of Legal Affairs. All questions replied on basis of information held at law commission. Accordingly, the First appeal is disposed of."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 27.11.2024 has been received from the CPIO, and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Atul Kumar Gupta, CPIO (Legal), Law Commission of India and Amit Kumar, CPIO- Department of Legal Affairs- participated in the hearing.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the RTI Applicant. They further stated that the complete list of report prepared by the law Commission of India with their present status as sought at point on. 2 of the instant RTI Application has been duly provided to the RTI Applicant. The FAA, Department of Legal Affairs order dated 23.12.2022 has also been placed on record by the concerned PIO.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Page 3 Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
Page 4 In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. No further action lies.
Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)